[djannzjkzxn]

My ballot has the candidate’s name on it, not some elector. If electors conspired to change the outcome, the people would rightfully consider it nothing more than a coup, regardless of the 18th-century design of the electoral college.

[ashtonkem]

In many states “faithless electors”, who override the public will are illegal. They’re also exceedingly rare.

At this point, Americans vote for the president, arguing to the contrary is just pedantry.

[pbhjpbhj]

Why have the electoral college then?

[ashtonkem]

Three reasons.

One, the electoral college itself is tied to the political power of many low population states, so any serious adjustment to this process is a pretty dangerous subject for some states, making any country wide changes very hard to start.

Two, the shift to direct election of the president (minus the electoral college) was not a planned change. If one day in the 19th century everyone decided to change, then scrapping the EC would've made sense. Instead it has been a slow process happening over at least a century to arrive at our modern system, hence the presence of vestigial artifacts like the electors themselves.

Three, the process of how electors are selected is delegated to the states, which is part of why it took so long. So for example Pennsylvania and Maryland went to a system by which one party won the entire state at once in 1789, while it took South Carolina until 1860 to abandon per district results. Maine never adopted the winner takes all approach, and assigns two votes by district and two by the popular vote tally.

[beerandt]

Well said, but I'd like to restate and emphasize a point you stated:

the Constitution specifies that States (not The People or citizens or voters) shall choose their electors.

As you said, allocation of electors by states has been played with in different ways based on different election/ voting methods, but there's actually no constitutional requirement for States to hold a general election at all.

It's entirely up to the state legislatures, who have all since delagated the responsibility to a statewide vote.

From Article II:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."

That's it- the rest covers how many electors each state gets.

It's questionable as to what theoretical limits the modern SCOTUS might place on this power to delegate, but they've already said that voting must adhere to "one person, one vote" principles, and have hinted that the states can't delegate the power externally (from the state). But they've never explicitly "locked-in" the requirement that any state hold a general election at all.

[ashtonkem]

You’re right that there’s no hard constitutional requirement that electors vote for for whoever won the popular vote in their state or district, but there is absolutely a strong cultural expectation that electors act faithfully. Also, it’s illegal in many states for electors to act faithlessly.

I think this is a bit like saying that the UK has no constitution because it’s not written down. It’s technically true, but it comes nowhere close to the actual lived experience of the people in that jurisdiction, who absolutely believe they live in a constitutional society.

[djannzjkzxn]

The electoral college as a system for weighting the votes of people based on where they live is unjust in my opinion, but it’s well-understood as part of the rules of the system as it exists today. The mechanics of that system where the electors are humans who cast votes instead of just points that get tallied is a formality we could get rid of.

[hombre_fatal]

So that you can't just pander to the top N population centers to win an election.

[salawat]

The Founders would fundamentally disagree, and so would I.

Our government repeats the motif of filtering down the raw passion and energy of the populace as a whole through a smaller, generally much less numerous group backed with the implicit assumption of good faith and sense.

The faithless elector was to the Founder's one of the last bulwarks against bestowing the highest office in the country to someone so repugnant, that an isolated bunch of people, accountable to no one but their own conscience, politely discussing the matter came to the conclusion it just couldn't work out. The idea that a President could get that far by mere populism and charlatanism may seem daft, but in that time, you didn't have background checks. You couldn't sniff out who someone really was, and if you knew the right people it was easy to get paraded in front of a populace that would eat up anything you fed them as long as there was enough spectacle to keep their attention. Odds are, it wouldn't be a problem. Everything would go just fine. However, the Founder's were well read on the ills of Greek and Roman poli, and the traps of demagoguery, and cults of personality. Their solution was the application of well-intentioned moral reasoning. We've all experienced the excitement of an idea that sounds great in a crowd, to later go home and say, "Now wait a minute." Same basic principle. In such an important decision, if it is really the right answer, no one will refuse,yet if it isn't, the stakes are high enough where the presence of that last chance is warranted.

The political party system completely undermined the entire intent behind the College, and many people never really try to transplant themselves out of the modern mindset, back to the time period to understand it. Nor do they realize just how important careful consideration of the person holding that post was. Think about it.

That President did not have the most capable Armed Forces in the world at his disposal. They did not have the capability to essentially make or unmake law via Administrative law and control of Alphabet soup of national regulatory agencies we have today. That President was not sitting atop the world's largest nuclear arsenal, or at the nexus of arguably one of the most well-funded intelligence and law enforcement apparatus in the world. In comparison to the Presidents of today, Abraham Lincoln was absolutely right. "No man can do any great harm in four years". Nowadays, given the level of interconnectivity between world governments, and the technological capabilities that are at our disposal, it stands to reason they might have balked at having a President in the first place. We don't know for certain. We can only guess.

I'm not certain anyone will find any of what I'm saying rhetorically convincing, but the main point I'm making is it is dangerous to dismiss the past without really understanding why what was done was done. The thinking behind the College was completely rational for the time, and arguably, even more rational and relevant today assuming your values and philosophies are more or less consistent with those of the Founders, who were so helpful as to write them down in generous volume that we may benefit from their endeavors today.

At least, I think so, and I've spent more time than I like to admit trying to understand the topic myself. Which is kind of silly, after all, to be ashamed of doing so, seeing as it is one of the single most important things to do for those who come after us.

To his wife,Joh Adams wrote:

>"The science of government it is my duty to study, more than all other sciences; the arts of legislation and administration and negotiation ought to take the place of, indeed exclude, in a manner, all other arts. I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain."

These Founders. These visionaries so loft in their ideals, dedicated their intellectual lives to the laying of a Foundational edifice that would stand the test of time. No Internet or easily accessible mobs of fairweather supporters did they have. No refuge in trivial pseudonymity were they blessed with. No instant feedback loops, or access to the happenings of the entire world at once to cherry pick what works and what doesn't. In spite of the vices and and repugnancies of the society of the time (which I will not whitewash or dismiss), these men demonstrated a commitment to the future few of their descendants, and increasingly few nowadays truly demonstrate. The preservation of personal liberty, and national unity unrivaled in degree or ferverence in administering. Abraham Lincoln himself likened it to the closest thing we should have to a National religion[2]. To cherish and preserve the liberties we enjoy do those who come after. Before you toss aside the fruits of the labor of people who in their time dedicated so much time to trying to think, reason, compromise, and do things well; it behooves you to at least understand their context, and to carry a paltry mockery of what they had to offer forward that you may learn and reap the fruits of a life we haven't had to spend as they did.

I'm sorry, but the flippant dismissive nature of your response just really doesn't do the import of the issue justice. I'm not trying to be condescending or patronizing (though that may end up being how it ends up coming off). I'm merely pointing out that it isn't some 18th century foppish hat to be cast aside. If you can't demonstrate an appreciation for why it was there, or show any indication you've put thought into whether or not it's mutation from it's original intent has actually been a net negative, it is difficult to take your assertion seriously. Then again, I can count on both hands the number of people I've met who will even entertain that level of debate or thought, and only one hand is necessary for the number who have straight up admitted they do it out of a personally perceived sense of duty.

In short, check your damn history and show your work if you expect to be taken seriously. I can't emphasize it enough. If everyone else's liberties aren't important enough to you to do so, I don't know what else would be.

[1]https://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/archive/doc?id=L178005... [2]http://abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/liberty.htm [2a]Also see the The Eloquent President, by Ronald C. White. Read it slowly. [3]Federalist Papers 68 [4]Anti-Federalist Papers 72

Just read them. It's man years of interlocution to make, far less to read and process, and far easier to get a hold of now.

These aren't easy or trite issues by far, and if nothing else, you have to work to build empathy and compassion to both sides to be able to have any realistic chance of being able to credibly take a stab at making decent policy.

I can forgive a man who decides against me on the grounds he actually did the footwork to understand, but his character lead him to a different conclusion. However I cannot abide by what seems to pass for sound policy nowadays.

[couchand]

I'm not sure that's an accurate portrayal of the history of the matter. It wasn't at all a carefully considered scheme, it was thrown together slapdash, the option that none could hate but also none loved.

You cite Federalist 68, but forget that less than a year later Hamilton was gaming the electoral college.

The founders were humans. They had flaws and disagreements. Many parts of the Constitution are borne more out of political expediency than grand ideals, and the operation of the Electoral College is not exempt from these caveats.

[pgrote]

>The faithless elector was to the Founder's one of the last bulwarks against bestowing the highest office in the country to someone so repugnant, that an isolated bunch of people, accountable to no one but their own conscience, politely discussing the matter came to the conclusion it just couldn't work out.

Thank you for taking the time to illustrate many points. I appreciate the informationa and further explanation.

[jacquesm]

That doesn't change the facts.

[lowwave]

Keep in mind. US came into existing through declaration.

[anigbrowl]

Well sure, but when people are sufficiently annoyed they tend to change the offending facts.